COMMENT
Enabling Windows XP to run on a Mac may be Steve Jobs' boldest move yet. But, asks Seb Janacek, what is Apple hoping to achieve - and will it be successful?
Apple's announcement that Intel-powered Macs can now run Windows XP via a technology called Boot Camp caused a considerable shock last week. This is partially to do with the fact that the rumour sites didn't get a sniff of it but mostly because the 5 April announcement sounded like a belated April Fool's joke. In many ways, it still does.
In a nutshell, Boot Camp allows users of Intel-powered Macs to boot Windows XP natively in place of the incumbent OS X operating system at start-up. Apple is currently calling the technology a public beta and adds that it neither has an interest in selling or supporting Windows.
Websites and competitions to get XP running on an Intel Mac have been around since the machines first became available. One competition even awarded a prize of around £13,000 just a few days before Boot Camp was announced.
The Boot Camp technology will be integrated directly in the next version of OS X - 10.5 Leopard - due out in late 2006 or early 2007. Speculation online is that by this point the software will provide true virtualisation capabilities, allowing both operating systems to be run concurrently without needing to reboot.
The Boot Camp news was arguably more of a surprise than the Intel announcement last June, though neither could have been predicted as being likely developments for the highly secretive company.
The modern Mac is built from components designed and built by third-party manufacturers and the move to Intel processors made the differentiation between Apple kit and those of rival hardware vendors more difficult to determine. The stamp of Apple on its kit is the industrial design, while the real soul of the company's computers is the operating system.
The Windows OS has long been derided in Cupertino and by the company's fan base, while the litigious history between the two companies over the look and feel of the Windows OS is part of IT folklore. To put something so derided by both the corporation and its user base at the heart of a Mac is an extraordinary move.
On one hand it seems a typical piece of Steve Jobs bravado - cocky and confident. It says: 'Use XP if you really want to, we think it's crap, inelegant and you'll end up riddled with viruses, just like with your Wintel PCs. Isn't there a better way?' The company is clearly betting that by using these two operating systems side by side, most users will wake up to the superiority of OS X.
On the other hand, the move is the antithesis of the design ethos the Apple CEO has been expounding in all his time at the company. A simple pure vision of computing - hardware tied to operating system.
It's clear from reactions in the blogosphere that many traditional Mac users are outraged by the move for precisely that reason. On the other hand, there are a lot of Mac users who also recognise that this is a bold move for the company, with little risk and a lot of new customers to gain.
There are dangers involved, however, most significantly from developers producing third-party software for the Mac platform.
A few years back they were asked to make the necessary changes to their existing and new software to allow applications to run on OS X rather than OS 9. And last June they were told they would have to recompile their software in order to run to maximum effectiveness on the Intel platform, despite the Rosetta emulation software.
Even Jobs has acknowledged that for some developers, the recompiling of software for Intel Macs would be far from trivial.
Now that Mac users are capable of running Windows, developers may give lower priority to Mac versions of applications.
How Apple manages the relationship between its key developer partners will be key.
So why offer Boot Camp at all? At its core it's about winning hearts and minds in the battle for market share. The much-derided Switch campaign - remember those adverts of Windows users who had switched to Mac? - may not have been as successful as Apple hoped but the company has made significant inroads into attracting new customers through the so-called iPod halo effect by converting PC users into Mac users on the back of positive experiences with the iPod
The Boot Camp technology is the Switch campaign on steroids.
It's not really doubted that the move will help the company sell a lot of Macs. The question is where the company will be aiming its sights.
silicon.com's CIO Jury has ruled that XP on a Mac is not for business, largely due to higher hardware costs and support issues.
One juror predicted that XP on a Mac would only appeal to "computer hobbyists", those with a genuine interest in how technology is built, how it works and with how users interact with it.
This may be exactly the market sector that Apple has identified as being ripe for conversion.
Simply offering XP on a Mac is not likely to spark a mass migration of general users to the Mac. After all, 'native booting' and 'virtualisation' are not the easiest phrases to work into a marketing brief.
However, the hobbyists are likely to be the company's prize - a market that has a genuine interest in good technology rather than the average home user who wants a PC that runs Office and can access the web and email.
It's also a market sector that's close to its own traditional loyal customer base, which sustained the company during its fallow years.
Apple has a minority share of the industry (between three and five per cent according to most estimates) but it only needs to increase that by a few percentage points to make hugely significant differences to its revenue.
This is a bold move for the company and one which will be lauded for its business acumen if not for its dedication to its design principles.
If nothing else, it reinforces the fact that Apple is one of those very few companies that can completely surprise you, time and time again, no matter how long you've followed its activities.
Comments
There are 27 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
I like the move to allow XP on the Mac. I use a Powerbook G4 and a PC at work, at the same time. My next computer will be a 20 inch iMac and I will run XP only for applications that cannot be run on OS X. Frankly the difference between the two operating systems is for me is minor. The one program that I use preferentially on the Mac is Keynote, I give a lot of scientific presentations and it just looks so much nicer. Of course all the iApps are great.
2. Kent Alan Lee, MA. MD.
When evaluating whether or not MacIntel boxes are ready for business, it is dangerous to assume that the current IT support paradigm will be true in the future. Currently, most employers provide equipment, and thus support services prefer limited hardware choices for staff, with the lowest cost/highest performance ratio being the determinant of what hardware is sanctioned. However, the economic trap of that paradigm, is the requirement of upgrading huge volumes of hardware on a recurrent capitalization cycle, which draws a great deal of resources out of the corporation. I have recently been noticing a different tack: businesses are saying, let's just give an initial stipend to each user to purchase and maintain their own computing needs. If this paradigm takes over, then certain corollaries will be seen. First, users like quality stuff. They already choose more expensive PDA's out of pocket. It isn't a great stretch to suppose they will behave the same way with regard to which PC they choose, and thus choose Apple over Dell or whatever. The other corollary is an argument for security. An IT department could say, "Boot up WinXP Pro while at work, but for all the private stuff you do, you need to boot up Mac OS X..." With correct execution of security policies, that could theoretically limit some of the accumulation of risks.
3. anonymous
This is a really clever move for Apple. people don't buy Mac because they can't run every application that thier PCs can run, I would have liked to buy a Mac last year but there are a couple of programs which I need which aren't on the Mac (so i got a Windows PC), now if Macs can run windows I will be buying one next time round, a nicer operating system and the ability to run both Mac and PC software.
This will may put developers off making Mac versions of software, but the overall effect will be much more macs sold, creating a bigger userbase who will have the ability to run windows but probably won't want to after getting used to the Mac.
Microsoft are going to be in big trouble in a few years time with Google offering more services, firefox and openoffice gaining popularity, and soon more people with Macs. Can't say I'll be sorry!
4. Tomas Jane
nice article, but you've forgotten to mention one thing - games. Boot Camp will finally allow Mac users to play hundreds of PC games, not available for Mac OS, at native speeds! That is a big step. Boot Camp is not about windows but about running programs written for the Windows platform.
PS: this is off topic: By your surname I would judge you or your ancestors might have come from the Czech Republic (formerly Czechoslovakia) If that's the case accept my greetings from Prague
5. anonymous
This is only surprising if you weren't paying attention.
6. Biran
The idea of a Mac running Windows XP is about as useful as an amphibious car. Aapple tried this before and it was a flop. You remember those things. Since the data between the two OS’s can’t be shared, what’s the point.
When you consider the retail the price of Window XP license at about $150, you can but an whole PC for about $400 now and connect the two. What happens when Microsoft moves to the next version of Windows?
7. Chris Killingsworth
I like the idea based on another analysis I read. It says Boot Camp may be the first salvo, the next being a version that allows OSX to run on PCs. At $99 a copy, a percentage of the installed base of WinXP PCs installing a copy of OSX could be a boon to AAPL.
8. anonymous
I suspect that more "hobbyists" will be interested in the question of whether the Mac OS can be made to run on other Intel machines, rather than the other way round.
This move by Apple is not aimed at business, and it's not aimed at hobbyists. It's aimed at hard-core gamers.
Typically, Apple has overpriced its hardware. Years ago Gates figured out that the market is in software; when will Apple disover that?
9. shaun kanak
"The Boot Camp technology is the Switch campaign on steroids."
A bigger, bolder switch campaign would be to offer a dual-boot tool with basic version of OSX to current WinXP users for about $100. That way virtually all Windows users could really try OSX and choose based on their experience. The pull them all the way over to Apple by letting them know that they can do even more on a "full" OSX package on a Mac. This should be a no brainer for Jobs since the development cost of OSX has already been built into the current and projects Mac users. Therefore, there would be minimal cost in offering this along with the potential to really take a lot more market share than the current Bootcamp on a Mac scheme.
I doubt I would ever buy a Mac to try it out and buy WinXP just to use my Win only apps but I could justify $100 to dabble in OSX and see first hand how it worked.
10. devinmoore.com
it's a way of saying, "we are so confident in the superiority of our product, and in the flawed strategy of our big competitor in trying to lock you into their O/S, that we'll let you boot their system on our hardware."
It's like freedom of choice, which Apple has endorsed as innovation and creativity at least since 1984. It's like how here in the U.S. we can have 2 different religion's houses of worship on the same street.
Even if two things disagree with each other, it's the idea that they can coexist that rules free society, and Apple has endorsed that same freedom with this move.
11. Dustin
Does this mean that the day of the triple boot has arrived? Booting option of Windows, OS, or Linux (Fedora)?? That is an exciting prospect
12. Anon
Works for me. I've been to wanting to switch from PC to Mac for years but the thought of replacing all the apps that I'm comfortable with and have been using for years is a major chore. I run my business on Filemaker which runs on both (better on Mac) so I can hit the ground running when I switch, then migrate the others to Mac apps as time and budget allow. Thank you Steve Jobs!!
13. Joseph Awad
I agree with the games comment. I am a middle aged amateur musician and when I deal with high school and college-aged musicians and artists they all prefer a Mac but tell me they are also avid gamers and come down the side of a PC since they can afford only one machine. BootCamp allows them to do both and keep them separate.
For me I only desire a virtualization solution that allows me to run a few Windows only apps, but there are a large group of people above who actually would probably prefer a dual boot solution.
14. Joseph Awad
I agree with the games comment. I am a middle aged amateur musician and when I deal with high school and college-aged musicians and artists they all prefer a Mac but tell me they are also avid gamers and come down the side of a PC since they can afford only one machine. BootCamp allows them to do both and keep them separate.
For me I only desire a virtualization solution that allows me to run a few Windows only apps, but there are a large group of people above who actually would probably prefer a dual boot solution.
15. OK
The reason why it makes sense to target enthusiasts is that they influence other people's computer choices. That is why this move makes sense. If Apple can convert the people who are most computer literate, they will advise their friends and family members to also convert.
16. Marvin
OK now reduce the price of the Macs by about a thousand dollars and you might be in business Steve
17. nobody
running xp on a mac is like using diesel in an indi racer! why do it? i have been a "hobbyist" as your IT clowns call us, since 1984, and have been forced to use wintel machines at work by bureaucrat idiots like those you asked for their opinions. they continue to be in the mainframe mindframe. ask the users. they will tell you mac is superior.
18. anonymous
Running both OSs concurrently is the direction AAPL is headed. That will open up the entire PC install base around the globe to purchase Leopard and give Apple a try at a $100 entry level price point. Genious. 3 years later all of the converts will buy a Mac when its time to upgrade the machine.
19. daScribe
I switched for a reason. So to this I say, "Better them than me!"
20. Mav Man
Why does everyone fret over whether third-party developers will release native OS X applications now that you can run Windows on an Intel Mac? The expectation is not for current Windows-only vendors to port their apps to OS X (it'd be nice, but it's only necessary in one or two cases, like Autodesk), especially since most Windows applications have their Mac counterparts.
The only third-party apps that matter are the PC games typically released several months later and at higher price points for Mac (typically because they were ported by companies other than their original developers). And if you can run your full selection of PC games in an isolated Windows environment - such that the various StarForce and other invasive "copy protection" mechanisms can not severely damage your main working environment - then all's just peachy, if you ask me.
21. Kevin Boggs
I've read so many many different opinions on how this will effect Apple and how little it will change it will make in the computer market. Many seem to have forgotten an extrmely large market that most certainly has a huge interest in running OS X and XP. Apple has traditionally been strong in the field of education. Lately some of that has faded, however, with the advent of Boot Camp I can see many educators who were strayng from Apple suddenly returning to the fold. Don't under estimate the education market. It is huge.
22. Bri Hartmann
Book Camp has changed my plans in future buying. I am a "hobbyist" and loyal Mac user, and I was going to buy a fast PC and a fast Mac within the next year. Now I only have to buy one machine! When Mac gets 64 bit processors I'm buyin'. Yes I will be chomping at the bit for Adobe CS3.
23. Paul Mullin
I personally think BootCamp a GREAT development, now enabling two sets of users -- as long as the necessary precautions (anti-virus, WinXP updates, etc.) are taken:
1. Mac users that need/want to run XP-only applications, such as most CAD programs.
2. Would-be PC-to-Mac "switchers" that still need to access data in PC-only apps, or who are "married" to few PC-only applications... they get to keep their "security blanket" while exploiting the features of the Mac OS and its applications.
I plan to use it (eventually) on a MacBook Pro, which I will configure to dual-boot so I can run CAD software such as SolidWorks, ProE, or Catia V5 on the XP side, and all my favorite apps in MacOSX. I'd like to compare the performance of these apps in a "virtual machine" mode on the MacBook when that capability becomes available (Virtual PC doesn't yet support the MacTel machines).
The other really useful feature of BootCamp is the ability to add and remove an additional partition on the same hard drive without impacting the existing MacOS file structure.
This alone makes it really handy.
24. Martin Lukes
Has Anyone Except Me Actually Tried This?
I bought my 20 inch 2Gb iMac. It was slower than the two year old iMac it was supposed to replace. Task one: go and buy enough RAM to make the machine work the way it should when it left the shop. That's progress - to get anything to work you need 1.5 Gb of RAM? Come on!!
You can't share Windows data with Windows data, let alone corss platform - just try opening a 5 year old PowerPoint presentation with your new PowerPoint software and see how far you get. Apparently .ppt files are't PowerPoint at all, when PowerPoint says they're not.
Then download BootCamp four times and try to work out where exactly it's gone, after you saved it. I can't find it and I'm tired of looking.
OK, it's for gamers. Far out. I didn't buy Mac to help out kids whoe parents bought them something to play on. It's not a big priority for me, helping out other people's offspring with my business budget. I bought Mac because it used to be better than Windows. Now I'm nowhere near so sure it wasn't all just a waste of time. I have to use Microsoft Word and PowerPoint or no-one can read my stuff anyway, I have to buy more RAM on a new MAC just so it works, and apart from being $2000 down the new machine is about as good as the old one - that is, the keybaord is still a disgrace you need to hit with a hammer before anything types on it. Still, given all I should be using is the arrow keys and set <Delete> as the <Fire Rockets> button and what have I got to worry about. Apple blew it when they started re-issuing another OS every 18 months, (more stuff you don't need, apart from RAM, which isn't included) just like Microsoft. I really don't see how Apple justifies the price premium now.
25. anonymous
What on earth is the point? If you /need/ a PC then you shouldn't have a Mac.
Cheaper initially and less TCO to have one platform - twice the OS cost, two sets of antivirus/security software, and, especially for corporates, extra OS training.
Maybe useful for a few home Mac users. Other than that, can't see the point.
26. Bill Citrine
When I'm building a web site it's essential that I have both a Mac and a PC networked up. I build the sites on the Mac because the Adobe and Macromedia progs run smoother with better interfaces. Also when designing for print - nothing can touch the Mac.
Sites need to be tested across all platforms and browsers. I can't wait until I can test my sites properly on the one machine. I've tried Virtual PC... it's OK bu it's not ideal.
I hope the idea of running a Mac operating system on machines other than Apple Macs doesn't catch on. I remember the Mac clones and the problems we had with them. The Mac hardware is superior and innovative, the operating system runs flawlessly (99% of the time - unlike my PCs), and it should cost more. (Having said that, the cost of Macs is coming down).
I like the idea of running XP on my Mac but Apple should tread carefully running OSX on a PC. There's so many different configurations of motherboards, processors, pci cards etc. etc. and there's many unexplained XP errors which can only be hardware realted... they'd be walking into a minefield!
27. Malcolm Wilson
I design websites on a Mac and to ensure that I'm producing something meaningful and useful for PC people, I need to bench-run the site on both platforms. The ability to run XP (and later, Vista?) on a Mac is a real boon, particularly the reduction in cables, power consumption and general clutter. Also, Apple aren't stupid. They know that 90% of the world uses Windoze and that there are a lot of bespoke apps out there for PCs only. I've heard many a PC user saying how trapped they feel at being bound to a machine purely because of its software...